By DOMINIC GWINN
It took a Tallahassee judge to point out the simple — and appalling — truth about Amendment 3, the November proposal to cut property taxes in Florida.
The ballot language for the proposed amendment is totally biased. It must be rewritten if voters have any hope of making an informed decision.
Lawmakers wrote the state the ballot language that Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank found on Monday to be “clearly and conclusively defective.” He called the wording “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation,” in his 18-page ruling. He took issue with everything from the title of the amendment — “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” — to the summary language that voters see on their ballots.
“Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination. The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” he wrote.
As for the title, it “is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral,” he wrote.
Another way to say that: Quit trying to put your thumb on the scale, Florida. Let voters decide without loaded words and half-truths being thrown at them.
The amendment was already highly controversial. Initially pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, it would increase the homestead exemption on owner-occupied homes to $150,000 in 2027 and then to $250,000 in 2028. Another provision would reduce the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.
Before approving the bill to put the issue on the ballot, the Republican Legislature changed the measure to keep intact the portion of property tax bills that pays for public schools. That’s when DeSantis — after spending a year talking about eliminating or cutting Floridians’ property taxes and forcing a speedy special legislative session to get it on the ballot — said in June he wouldn’t put his political weight behind the proposal.
“What the Legislature did wasn’t my proposal,” he said, in an explanation that sounded a lot like sour grapes.
The legal challenge to the proposed amendment came from a bipartisan group calling itself Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, which includes former lawmakers Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican; U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, a Democrat along with former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni and former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey.
Attorney General James Uthmeier, who is running for election after being appointed to his job by DeSantis, has 10 days to revise the ballot language. Any legal challenge to the revised language would have to come within 10 days after that. After the Aug. 18 primary, elections supervisors will start assembling the November ballot, so time is tight.
The fairness problems with the ballot are numerous, the judge said, including subheads — “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents” — that he found inaccurate. The amendment would actually be likely to decrease local governments’ revenue to fund core services like police and fire, he wrote.
The summary also promises “fairness for Florida residents.” But the amendment discriminates against certain Floridians, Frank wrote, including renters who could wind up paying more in costs shifted to them and Floridians who become residents after 2026. (They would have to five years before they could benefit from the expanded homestead exemption.)
And then there is perhaps the biggest omission: not telling voters how the measure could fundamentally change the concept of “home rule,” a long-held principle in Florida that gives local governments the power to spend property tax revenues. As Frank wrote, the amendment would “change the constitutional baseline of city and county power by placing in the Constitution for the first time the Legislature’s right to control ad valorem tax spending.” Translation: Tallahassee politicians would control how local governments can spend their money.
Voters will have the final say in November — assuming the rewritten proposal makes it onto the ballot. If it does — without all the misleading language — Floridians will at least have a fighting chance to understand the change they are being asked to approve.